There is this idea that Atheism should be defined in an epistemological way, that is, God might ontologically exist but since we cannot know God via empirical or rational means then we ought to remain rationally Atheist. Such is often defined as "weak Atheism".

Now, I reject the above premise of weak Atheism, that God cannot be known via experience or rational means. I believe God can, and has been, experienced in a sensory manner by many. And, I believe the plethora of such experiences, religious, spiritual or the like, can be trusted as legitimate experiences by those who have them even if the phenomenal qualia of such, what is felt in such an experience, is incorrectly understood or irrationally interpreted.

So far as rational arguments are concerned, I especially think that arguments for God's existence are very strong, and even quite decisive. Except for, of course, to those whose who I see wilfully reject God -- such appear to not see any good argument. The ball as far as I'm concerned is really in the court of Atheists to try and explain and argue away God's existence, which they've been pressing hard to do the last few centuries. With God removed from the picture, to be consistent in life there is an intellectual onus I see on Atheists to also justify and/or reject a whole lot of other beliefs we naturally and intuitively often accept (i.e., fairness, goodness, real beauty, meaning, purpose, our self and own will, etc).

Yet, going back to the original point in the opening paragraph above, the question I have is whether there something you as an Atheist does claim to know about the world i.e., how it came to be or has always been? Do you believe this knowledge of yours is 1) proven or true, or 2) could you be wrong?

If the former (1) then I say that such faith is not so different from Theists who place their faith in God. If the latter (2), then it seems to me that you must be a weak Atheist with regard to all your beliefs, well at least those beliefs which impact upon any foundational and substantial meaning we see in life.

I'd be interested in some reasonable responses from any Atheist or Atheist-leaning persons, especially those who would self-identify as the weak form of Atheist.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Kurieuo wrote:There is this idea that Atheism should be defined in an epistemological way, that is, God might ontologically exist but since we cannot know God via empirical or rational means then we ought to remain rationally Atheist. Such is often defined as "weak Atheism".

Of course this line of thought only applies to those who believes God’s existence or non existence cannot be known via empirical or rational means.

Kurieuo wrote:Now, I reject the above premise of weak Atheism, that God cannot be known via experience or rational means.

Of course! And I’m sure there are some “strong atheists” who reject the above premise for the opposite reasons.

Kurieuo wrote:I believe God can, and has been, experienced in a sensory manner by many. And, I believe the plethora of such experiences, religious, spiritual or the like, can be trusted as legitimate experiences by those who have them even if the phenomenal qualia of such, what is felt in such an experience, is incorrectly understood or irrationally interpreted.

So far as rational arguments are concerned, I especially think that arguments for God's existence are very strong, and even quite decisive. Except for, of course, to those whose who I see wilfully reject God -- such appear to not see any good argument.

Just as you say those who willfully reject God will not see any good arguments for accepting God? The same could be said about those who willfully accept God not seeing any good arguments for the opposing view.

Kurieuo wrote:The ball as far as I'm concerned is really in the court of Atheists to try and explain and argue away God's existence, which they've been pressing hard to do the last few centuries.

Good luck with that! Most definitions of God are defined in a way that he can’t be empirically disproven.

Kurieuo wrote:With God removed from the picture, to be consistent in life there is an intellectual onus I see on Atheists to also justify and/or reject a whole lot of other beliefs we naturally and intuitively often accept (i.e., fairness, goodness, real beauty, meaning, purpose, our self and own will, etc).

Really??? I’m reminded of an old saying; (I am paraphrasing) “Good men will do good, and bad men will do bad, whether religious or not. The only difference is the religious man will use his religion to justify his actions whether they be good or bad, and the non religious man will use something else as justification.

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, going back to the original point in the opening paragraph above, the question I have is whether there something you as an Atheist does claim to know about the world i.e., how it came to be or has always been? Do you believe this knowledge of yours is 1) proven or true, or 2) could you be wrong?

Obviously there is much about the world that I would claim to know because it is proven daily; however how things got to be the way they are isn’t one of them.

Kurieuo wrote:If the former (1) then I say that such faith is not so different from Theists who place their faith in God. If the latter (2), then it seems to me that you must be a weak Atheist with regard to all your beliefs, well at least those beliefs which impact upon any foundational and substantial meaning we see in life.

I'd be interested in some reasonable responses from any Atheist or Atheist-leaning persons, especially those who would self-identify as the weak form of Atheist.

I’m not sure where you are coming from here. When you asked about “things I know about the world” were you referring to anything about the world (law of gravity, evolution,centrifugal force, etc.) or were you speaking specifically about astronomy?

Ken

RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".